Soft on Crime

"A mother who bashed her toddler so badly she had to be hospitalised has boasted about not being jailed and 'surviving' a storm of social media outrage against her.

Lorien Norman was last week given a suspended jail sentence for a horrific attack in which she abused her eight-month-old daughter Evie with a kitchen serving spoon.

In a text message sent by Norman to her former partner Shane McMahon after being sentenced, she said: 'So, I'm not going to jail... even with everyone against me on social media I still made it'.

The adorable toddler was left with sickening bruises to her eyes, nose and cheeks at the hands of her mum, who after the incident threatened to throw her off a balcony.
"
Why is the judge retarded? Can anyone actually say this was justice? She later taunts the father about it and brags that she'll have custody in a year. Insane. Here's hoping someone bashes the mom's head in.

Last edited by Lewkowski; 02-13-2018 at 05:11 AM.
Reason: May not be right country

Didn't you post this back in September when it was first published? This is a woman with a lifelong history of psychiatric illness and trauma. She should've been sentenced to psychiatric care but was at least compelled to go complete a drug-rehab programme. I disagree, but I don't how enough about the case to have a well-founded opinion. She lost the right to have unsupervised visits with her children. She was given a suspended sentence, which means any further criminal offenses of any kind will see her in jail. While what she did was abominable, it was less abominable than many other examples of child abuse, and, so far as the court was able to ascertain, not sustained over time. You had two wife-beaters in prominent positions at your White House--and have elected a man almost certainly guilty of multiple sexual assaults as your president--and you want to talk about Australia being soft on crime? Gimme a break.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

You had two wife-beaters in prominent positions at your White House--and have elected a man almost certainly guilty of multiple sexual assaults as your president--and you want to talk about Australia being soft on crime? Gimme a break.

Aimless, you have to take into account that they are white, male and rich, so anything they do is OK.

Greetings, citizen! THE COMPUTER has made you a protector of the underground city of ALPHA COMPLEX. You will have lots of fun rooting out Communist mutant traitors. The Computer says so.

Didn't you post this back in September when it was first published? This is a woman with a lifelong history of psychiatric illness and trauma. She should've been sentenced to psychiatric care but was at least compelled to go complete a drug-rehab programme. I disagree, but I don't how enough about the case to have a well-founded opinion. She lost the right to have unsupervised visits with her children. She was given a suspended sentence, which means any further criminal offenses of any kind will see her in jail. While what she did was abominable, it was less abominable than many other examples of child abuse, and, so far as the court was able to ascertain, not sustained over time. You had two wife-beaters in prominent positions at your White House--and have elected a man almost certainly guilty of multiple sexual assaults as your president--and you want to talk about Australia being soft on crime? Gimme a break.

The difficulty in a justice system is the problem of people not guilty of things going to prison. However once we realize beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in this case) we should completely separate them from society. This person harmed a child. Lied about. Taunted the father of said child afterwards.

Why do you I feel that you would be singing a different tune if it was a man who attacked the child, got a light sentence and then taunted his ex-spouse?

The difficulty in a justice system is the problem of people not guilty of things going to prison. However once we realize beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in this case) we should completely separate them from society. This person harmed a child. Lied about. Taunted the father of said child afterwards.

Why do you I feel that you would be singing a different tune if it was a man who attacked the child, got a light sentence and then taunted his ex-spouse?

Because your opinions regarding guilt or innocence aren't reliable or consistent. And your ideas about punishment are arcane.

You're the guy that started a thread bemoaning the lack of 'Due Process' for men accused of sexual impropriety, as if they'd be exonerated or excused for their dalliances outside a court of law because boys will be boys, huh.

You talk about being soft on crime, but you won't consider sensible limitations to the 2nd Amendment?

You're the guy that started a thread bemoaning the lack of 'Due Process' for men accused of sexual impropriety, as if they'd be exonerated or excused for their dalliances outside a court of law because boys will be boys, huh.

What are you even talking about and how is it at all relevant to this topic?

What are you even talking about and how is it at all relevant to this topic?

Hey, you started this thread, posted a link with pictures, and named the title. "Soft on crime". I might have taken you seriously if you'd said the same thing for victims without picture proof, like the minor children victimized by abusive teachers or priests or athletic doctors, but you didn't. No, you just went to the latest, most spurious thing you "heard" from Fox, or other alt-right sources.

The difficulty in a justice system is the problem of people not guilty of things going to prison. However once we realize beyond a shadow of a doubt (like in this case) we should completely separate them from society. This person harmed a child. Lied about. Taunted the father of said child afterwards.

In this case, why should she be completely separated from society?

I ask because of the apparent circumstance. If her crime is rooted in mental illness and having un-supervised access to her child, then the judge's order that she receive psychological treatment and be banned from unsupervised visits with the child seems to address the source of the trouble. As for taunting her ex, that's not really a crime - it just shows that she's fucked up and shouldn't be alone with her child, which was already addressed.

The cost of sending her to prison is very high and I don't believe it should be paid unless it's necessary. And "I hate what she did and want her to suffer" is insufficient to call a necessity. If you really want to spend tax dollars on her, send her to a mental hospital where she could come out a contributing member of society.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

I ask because of the apparent circumstance. If her crime is rooted in mental illness and having un-supervised access to her child, then the judge's order that she receive psychological treatment and be banned from unsupervised visits with the child seems to address the source of the trouble. As for taunting her ex, that's not really a crime - it just shows that she's fucked up and shouldn't be alone with her child, which was already addressed.

The cost of sending her to prison is very high and I don't believe it should be paid unless it's necessary. And "I hate what she did and want her to suffer" is insufficient to call a necessity. If you really want to spend tax dollars on her, send her to a mental hospital where she could come out a contributing member of society.

Multiple reasons.

1. She has shown no remorse.
2. She has shown the capability for violence against those who can't defend themselves.
3. Harsh punishments work as a deterrent.
4. Just because the crime was against a child doesn't mean she wouldn't do other crimes to other people.
5. She lied to the authorities.

All of this paint a picture that she needs to have the book thrown at her for the good of society. Once we have identified the shit stains of society we should be doing everything we can to keep them away from the good law abiding citizens.

1. She has shown no remorse.
2. She has shown the capability for violence against those who can't defend themselves.
3. Harsh punishments work as a deterrent.
4. Just because the crime was against a child doesn't mean she wouldn't do other crimes to other people.
5. She lied to the authorities.

All of this paint a picture that she needs to have the book thrown at her for the good of society. Once we have identified the shit stains of society we should be doing everything we can to keep them away from the good law abiding citizens.

1. Irrelevant and does not justify the cost of imprisonment

2. She hurt her child, probably because she can't deal with the stress of caring for a toddler. She is mentally ill, this is what the treatment is for. This is not a justification for the cost of imprisonment.

3. No they don't. And especially not for this kind of crime - mentally ill parent abusing her child. As a justification for imprisonment, this is literally stupid.

4. Punishing for possible future crime, now? She beat her toddler with a serving spoon because she has some inability to deal with her anger. Imprisonment is not a solution for such a condition. Mental hospital, maybe.

5. What, she denied beating her baby? That's an extra crime, on top of beating the baby, that justifies prison time?

Dude, just admit it. You think what she did was horrible and you don't know any other way to respond other than hurting her. You want the government to hurt her for no other reason than you abhor what she did. Period.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

We apparently have different ideas on what is important in a criminal justice system. My primary concern is the lessening of crime and keeping innocents safe. What I would do would make it more likely that she does not harm another child. What you propose would make it more likely. Now I get your value system is different than mine, you think society should consider what is good or bad for the criminal as well as the victim. Under that philosophy I see why you would push for lenience. However my moral calculus gives ZERO value to her and to other criminals. I'd rather 10,000 monsters like that die than let even a 5% chance that one innocent will be harmed again.

We apparently have different ideas on what is important in a criminal justice system. What you are talking about is not justice, you are interest My primary concern is the lessening of crime and keeping innocents safe. What I would do would make it more likely that she does not harm another child. What you propose would make it more likely. Now I get your value system is different than mine, you think society should consider what is good or bad for the criminal as well as the victim. Under that philosophy I see why you would push for lenience. However my moral calculus gives ZERO value to her and to other criminals. I'd rather 10,000 monsters like that die than let even a 5% chance that one innocent will be harmed again.

You misinterpret my argument. I am interested in what is good, or most practical and effective, for society -- part of which is cost/ benefit. Imprisoning this woman carries a much higher cost and no better benefit than treating her mental illness. I suspect the reason you disagree is because treatment doesn't satisfy your desire for punishment. A thirst for revenge and hurt is not part of my moral calculus (probably a residue from my Christian upbringing), nor does satisfying it benefit society in any way. Probably your yearning for such things clouds in your mind what needs to be done in favor of what you desire to be done, but they are not the same thing.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

You misinterpret my argument. I am interested in what is good, or most practical and effective, for society -- part of which is cost/ benefit. Imprisoning this woman carries a much higher cost and no better benefit than treating her mental illness. I suspect the reason you disagree is because treatment doesn't satisfy your desire for punishment. A thirst for revenge and hurt is not part of my moral calculus (probably a residue from my Christian upbringing), nor does satisfying it benefit society in any way. Probably your yearning for such things clouds in your mind what needs to be done in favor of what you desire to be done, but they are not the same thing.

Let me make sure I clarify your argument.

Your position is that whatever is "good, or most practical and effective, for society -- part of which is cost/ benefit" is that locking up this woman is not as good for society because of the monetary cost? Do you have a specific equation you work off of?

For example X crime has a cost associated with it. Let's say child murder. What is the societal cost for allowing child murder to occur? Apply this to other crimes such as rape, assault, etc. Once you have that you can consider the probability of it occurring and then compare that to the cost of prison. So what price tag do you consider child abuse to have?

The monetary cost of locking people up can be high however the entire basis of government, the social contract, which says 'yeah we'll accept the lack of absolute freedom in exchange for safety' is the REASON we want government and not anarchy. The cost of keeping us safe is one of the few expenditures I'm fully in favor of.

No. But you could start with adding up the cost of lifetime imprisonment with the cost of the loss of her future economic productivity, and comparing it to the cost of appropriate psychological treatment.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

No. But you could start with adding up the cost of lifetime imprisonment with the cost of the loss of her future economic productivity, and comparing it to the cost of appropriate psychological treatment.

The challenge is to recognize that a one size fits all draconian police state is not justified by the goal of eliminating all risk of repeat offense. I know you are afraid, but you have to accept that there is no way for you to be completely safe, no matter what cost you are willing to have the nation bear.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

...
For example X crime has a cost associated with it. Let's say child murder. What is the societal cost for allowing child murder to occur? Apply this to other crimes such as rape, assault, etc. Once you have that you can consider the probability of it occurring and then compare that to the cost of prison. So what price tag do you consider child abuse to have?

The monetary cost of locking people up can be high however the entire basis of government, the social contract, which says 'yeah we'll accept the lack of absolute freedom in exchange for safety' is the REASON we want government and not anarchy. The cost of keeping us safe is one of the few expenditures I'm fully in favor of.

The challenge is to recognize that a one size fits all draconian police state is not justified by the goal of eliminating all risk of repeat offense. I know you are afraid, but you have to accept that there is no way for you to be completely safe, no matter what cost you are willing to have the nation bear.

I'm far far more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident than I am to get killed. Doubly so because I don't live in a place like Chicago or Detroit.

And I never did get an answer on what level of recidivism is acceptable crime. I'm not suggesting one size fits all, society has less concern about a pickpocket doing their crime again compared to a child rapist. So let's just narrow it down to child rape. What level is acceptable for you? IE if it is 10% than you are OK with one child being raped for each 10 child rapists being let out of prison. If it is 5% than you are OK with one child being raped for every 20 child rapists being let out. Just throw out a number.

I'm far far more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident than I am to get killed. Doubly so because I don't live in a place like Chicago or Detroit.

Fear of driving too? I've long thought that people in favor of Police State "justice" are fundamentally motivated by fear. Have you considered counselling, as an alternative to living in a police state and condemning your immortal soul to hell?

And I never did get an answer on what level of recidivism is acceptable crime.

No recidivism is acceptable, just as the initial offense is unacceptable - this is why we have a criminal justice system, to address behavior that is unacceptable. Unfortunately our society does not take any steps to really ensure there is no recidivism. I understand your approach is to kill or permanently incarcerate all criminals, which is neither just nor sensible, and extraordinarily unimaginative. I'm not an expert in recidivism rates or what measures are best taken to help released criminals avoid re-offending. I've heard some about it, enough to know that some programs work way better than others, or no program at all. So the rates can be brought down, perhaps even eliminated. The effort would be worth it, as opposed to what is often done today. And as opposed to your idea, which amounts to punishing every criminal for re-offending whether they do or not, just to be sure you are safe.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)